I couldn't help it...

[wardge76]

I sent another letter....

Betsy Pash, Director
Bureau of Local Health and Administrative Services
Public Health Administration
Michigan Dept. of Community Health
201 Townsend Street, Office 605
Lansing, Mi. 48913
(517) 335-8701
(517) 335-9032 (fax)
PashE@michigan.gov


Dear Betsy:
My name is George. I am 34 years old and had been a smoker since I was 14 years old. I have tried many times to quit smoking tobacco, and honestly think I tried every method out there from chantix, to gum, lozenges, zyban, patches, cold turkey and even acupuncture. Many attempts and many more failures over the years had left me feeling powerless against cigarettes. I am happy to say that I am now smoke free and have finally found something that is keeping me off of cigarettes.
My solution has come through in the form of the electronic cigarette. This device has been an absolute godsend for me and many other smokers. Since I started using them, I have had no urges to smoke tobacco cigarettes. I want to clarify that I did not buy them to be a smoking cessation product or NRT, but merely as an alternative to smoking tobacco cigarettes, but now I fear that my freedom from cigarettes may be short-lived based on misinformation published here http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/E_cig_factsheet_for_SF_law_website_FINAL6.11.10_324451_7.pdf

I belong to a forum group on the internet (http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com). Through reading posts from other members, and researching information through The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association (CASAA) website (http://www.casaa.org), I have learned a great deal about these live-saving products and the success of countless numbers of adults that are freely choosing to use them in place of smoking tobacco products.

Not everyone wants to quit using nicotine, some of us just want a safer way to get it that simulates smoking and won’t cause cancer, emphysema, and the various other conditions that are a direct result of inhaling tobacco smoke. Directing people to “not use electronic cigarettes”, and instead use NRT products that in the real world do not work for many people (check the facts on how many people actually succeed using these methods – the percentages are abysmal) is insulting.

I am concerned that our state has published misleading and inaccurate information to the general public regarding electronic cigarettes, and I refuse to have my right to choose what is best for me taken away based on fear-mongering, and misinformation.

I urge you to visit the websites I have mentioned above, as well as the attached PDF document and get the facts about how electronic cigarettes are helping people like me not light up, and to revise your “factsheet” using actual facts.
Thank you for your time,

The attachment I sent was the CASAA position on electronic cigarettes.

 

[dee5]

That's a beautiful, well written letter, good job! Oh, if she would only do as you ask....

 

[pm2006]

Very good letter. We all need to send one telling our story.

 

[wardge76]

Very good letter. We all need to send one telling our story.

Thank you I definitely think the more of us that make contact to educate officials (and let them know that we are watching), the better.

Strength in numbers is the only thing that will make a difference!

 

[GregH]

That was an excellent letter!

 

[Vocalek]

Thanks for sending them the CASAA Position Statement. The question now is whether Betsy Pash truly cares about your health and welfare, or whether she is a good little soldier who follows the dictates of the Alphabet Soup Gang: http://www.lungoregon.org/tobacco/pdf_word_doc/Policy_Guidance_on_E-Cigarettes_4-7-10 (2).pdf

P.S. The above is just one copy of the infamous policy document. It's posted in many places on the internet and has probably been delivered to thousands of legislators. Reading this document is what prompted me to write the CASAA document.

Notice that their document has only one footnote and it is evidence of a "who cares" point. If the devices don't deliver nicotine, then there's no danger to users or bystanders from that corner. BFD.

The CASAA document has a better grounding in facts (not just unfounded fears) and has better references.

It would be good if all of us composed a letter to our legislators about our experience with the devices and sent it by snail mail along with a copy of the CASAA document. That's only six stamps to cover two senators and a congressional representative at the state level and again at the federal level. If you live in a city that has authority to pass separate legislation, send a copy to the Mayor and to the City Council President. So that's 8 stamps at 44 cents each, plus some paper and envelopes. Less than 5 bucks.

 

[wardge76]

I will do that! I hope other members will follow suit!

Thanks for the reply Vocalek!

 

[newkirk]

It would be good if all of us composed a letter to our legislators about our experience with the devices and sent it by snail mail along with a copy of the CASAA document. That's only six stamps to cover two senators and a congressional representative at the state level and again at the federal level. If you live in a city that has authority to pass separate legislation, send a copy to the Mayor and to the City Council President. So that's 8 stamps at 44 cents each, plus some paper and envelopes. Less than 5 bucks.

Absolutely. It's impossible to overstate how important it could be for every politician (and healthcare official) to first hear about e-cigs from the people they've helped, and potentially saved, rather than from lobbyists urging them to squash this product they've never heard much about anyway.

We want politicians' impression of an electronic cigarette to be "the people who voted me into this office want this and they've got doctors saying it's safe", rather than "the people who paid for my campaign and sent me for a weekend golfing last month want me to ban this thing I've never heard of that they say their experts can show might not be good".

They say first impressions are everything, and for any elected or appointed offical who hasn't yet formed (or been handed) a firm opinion of ecigs, we need to build the foundation on "ecigs good", not "ecigs bad". Doesn't ensure they'll go our way on policy and laws, but at least we're not always entering the battle uphill.

j

 

[wardge76]

Apparently the State of Michigan either doesn't care, or is wearing FDA branded blinders... Here's the short (and non-descript) message I got back regarding my email...

"Thank you for contacting the State of Michigan and forwarding information from the CASAA.

After reviewing both the information provided by the CASAA as well as the information provided by the FDA, the State remains confident that it has not published misleading or inaccurate information regarding the e-cigarette.

Thank you for being an involved citizen."

The response came from Regina Calcagno (CalcagnoR@michigan.gov) - Not Betsy Pash - The person that I actually sent the email to... I am sooooo angry about this, I don't dare respond until I can think clearly.... Any suggestions?

 

[CtryBoy]

Apparently the State of Michigan either doesn't care, or is wearing FDA branded blinders... Here's the short (and non-descript) message I got back regarding my email...
. I am sooooo angry about this, I don't dare respond until I can think clearly.... Any suggestions?

Time out. Count to 20. I feel your pain. Waiting to see the responses to letters to my senators, etc. Phrased mine on how they could help us little people fight the FDA, we'll see.

 

[Vocalek]

Apparently the State of Michigan either doesn't care, or is wearing FDA branded blinders... Here's the short (and non-descript) message I got back regarding my email...

"Thank you for contacting the State of Michigan and forwarding information from the CASAA.

After reviewing both the information provided by the CASAA as well as the information provided by the FDA, the State remains confident that it has not published misleading or inaccurate information regarding the e-cigarette.

Thank you for being an involved citizen."

The response came from Regina Calcagno (CalcagnoR@michigan.gov) - Not Betsy Pash - The person that I actually sent the email to... I am sooooo angry about this, I don't dare respond until I can think clearly.... Any suggestions?

It is good to know that the State is conscientious about not publishing misleading or inaccurate information regarding the e-cigarette. Can you please provide more specific information?

Your Fact Sheet states, “The FDA has concluded that e-cigarettes pose acute health risks and contain detectable levels of carcinogens and toxic chemicals.” It also states, “The carcinogenic substances diethylene glycol and nitrosamines have been found in FDA tested samples, as well as other tobacco-specific impurities that may be harmful to humans.”

1. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, diethylene glycol (DEG) is not carcinogenic. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0643.htm The World Health Organization agrees: http://www.who.int/ipcs/poisons/pim_diethyleneglcol.pdf If you have evidence to the contrary, would you please supply the information and provide the source.

2. DEG can be toxic—given sufficient quantities. The FDA stated that they found 1% DEG in one of the Smoking Everywhere (SE) cartridges. The average e-cigarette user consumes 2 ml. of liquid per day, which—at 1% concentration—would represent a total exposure of .02 ml. The Minimal Risk Level for DEG is 0.8 mg per kilogram of body weight, per day. (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/pdfs/atsdr_mrls_december_2009.pdf).

Given the above facts, does it seem to you that the quantity of DEG that the FDA detected in the liquid poses an acute health risk? Or any risk at all?

3. Please specify the largest quantity of Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs) detected by the FDA in any single NJOY cartridge, expressed as nanograms: _____________.

a. In the journal article Tobacco-specific nitrosamines in new tobacco products (Source: Nicotine & Tobacco Research Volume 8, Number 2 (April 2006) 309–313.) Stepanov, Jenson, Hatsukami, and Hecht provide the quantities of TSNAs in a number of nicotine products. How does the quantity of TSNAs in an NJOY cartridge compare to the 8 nanograms of TSNAs in an FDA-approved nicotine patch and to the 2 nanograms per piece in FDA-approved nicotine gum?

b. The authors also cite the quantity of TSNAs in several brands of tobacco cigarettes. A single full-flavor Marlboro tobacco cigarette contains 6,300 ng of TSNAs. According to the NJOY promotional materials, a cartridge replaces about ½ pack of tobacco cigarettes. How does the quantity of TSNAs in an NJOY cartridge compare to the 63,000 ng of TSNAs in 10 Marlboro tobacco cigarettes?

4. Please list the quantities of each “additional impurity” that the FDA detected in the electronic cigarette liquid, along with the MRL for each of these substances.

5. Are these additional impurities also found in Marlboro tobacco cigarettes, and if so, in what quantities for 10 cigarettes?

 

[curiousJan]

Vocalek, you are an amazing asset to our community!! Thank you for _everything_ that you do!

It is good to know that the State is conscientious about not publishing misleading or inaccurate information regarding the e-cigarette. Can you please provide more specific information?

Your Fact Sheet states, “The FDA has concluded that e-cigarettes pose acute health risks and contain detectable levels of carcinogens and toxic chemicals.” It also states, “The carcinogenic substances diethylene glycol and nitrosamines have been found in FDA tested samples, as well as other tobacco-specific impurities that may be harmful to humans.”

1. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, diethylene glycol (DEG) is not carcinogenic. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0643.htm The World Health Organization agrees: http://www.who.int/ipcs/poisons/pim_diethyleneglcol.pdf If you have evidence to the contrary, would you please supply the information and provide the source.

2. DEG can be toxic—given sufficient quantities. The FDA stated that they found 1% DEG in one of the Smoking Everywhere (SE) cartridges. The average e-cigarette user consumes 2 ml. of liquid per day, which—at 1% concentration—would represent a total exposure of .02 ml. The Minimal Risk Level for DEG is 0.8 mg per kilogram of body weight, per day. (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/pdfs/atsdr_mrls_december_2009.pdf).

Given the above facts, does it seem to you that the quantity of DEG that the FDA detected in the liquid poses an acute health risk? Or any risk at all?

3. Please specify the largest quantity of Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs) detected by the FDA in any single NJOY cartridge, expressed as nanograms: _____________.

a. In the journal article Tobacco-specific nitrosamines in new tobacco products (Source: Nicotine & Tobacco Research Volume 8, Number 2 (April 2006) 309–313.) Stepanov, Jenson, Hatsukami, and Hecht provide the quantities of TSNAs in a number of nicotine products. How does the quantity of TSNAs in an NJOY cartridge compare to the 8 nanograms of TSNAs in an FDA-approved nicotine patch and to the 2 nanograms per piece in FDA-approved nicotine gum?

b. The authors also cite the quantity of TSNAs in several brands of tobacco cigarettes. A single full-flavor Marlboro tobacco cigarette contains 6,300 ng of TSNAs. According to the NJOY promotional materials, a cartridge replaces about ½ pack of tobacco cigarettes. How does the quantity of TSNAs in an NJOY cartridge compare to the 63,000 ng of TSNAs in 10 Marlboro tobacco cigarettes?

4. Please list the quantities of each “additional impurity” that the FDA detected in the electronic cigarette liquid, along with the MRL for each of these substances.

5. Are these additional impurities also found in Marlboro tobacco cigarettes, and if so, in what quantities for 10 cigarettes?

 

[wardge76]

Vocalek, you are an amazing asset to our community!! Thank you for _everything_ that you do!

Absolutely! You are amazing!!!

 

[rothenbj]

Absolutely! You are amazing!!!

Now all you need to do is copy and paste Elaine's information into an email and send it to both contacts and your state reps.

You might even want to suggest that their response should be published in you local paper since they were so sure they were providing good information to their constituents.

 

[wardge76]

Now all you need to do is copy and paste Elaine's information into an email and send it to both contacts and your state reps.

You might even want to suggest that their response should be published in you local paper since they were so sure they were providing good information to their constituents.

Done... and Done...

Ms. Calcagno,

It is good to know that the State is conscientious about not publishing misleading or inaccurate information regarding the e-cigarette. Can you please provide more specific information? Simply stating that you "reviewed the information" doesn't really address my original concern.

Your Fact Sheet states, “The FDA has concluded that e-cigarettes pose acute health risks and contain detectable levels of carcinogens and toxic chemicals.” It also states, “The carcinogenic substances diethylene glycol and nitrosamines have been found in FDA tested samples, as well as other tobacco-specific impurities that may be harmful to humans.”

1. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, diethylene glycol (DEG) is not carcinogenic. Diethylene glycol dinitrate (DEGDN) (CASRN 693-21-0) | IRIS | US EPA The World Health Organization agrees: http://www.who.int/ipcs/poisons/pim_diethyleneglcol.pdf If you have evidence to the contrary, would you please supply the information and provide the source.

2. DEG can be toxic—given sufficient quantities. The FDA stated that they found 1% DEG in one of the Smoking Everywhere (SE) cartridges. The average e-cigarette user consumes 2 ml. of liquid per day, which—at 1% concentration—would represent a total exposure of .02 ml. The Minimal Risk Level for DEG is 0.8 mg per kilogram of body weight, per day. (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/pdfs/atsdr_mrls_december_2009.pdf).
Given the above facts, does it seem to you that the quantity of DEG that the FDA detected in the liquid poses an acute health risk? Or any risk at all?

3. Please specify the largest quantity of Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs) detected by the FDA in any single NJOY cartridge, expressed as nanograms: _____________.

​

a. In the journal article Tobacco-specific nitrosamines in new tobacco products (Source: Nicotine & Tobacco Research Volume 8, Number 2 (April 2006) 309–313.) Stepanov, Jenson, Hatsukami, and Hecht provide the quantities of TSNAs in a number of nicotine products. How does the quantity of TSNAs in an NJOY cartridge compare to the 8 nanograms of TSNAs in an FDA-approved nicotine patch and to the 2 nanograms per piece in FDA-approved nicotine gum?

​

b. The authors also cite the quantity of TSNAs in several brands of tobacco cigarettes. A single full-flavor Marlboro tobacco cigarette contains 6,300 ng of TSNAs. According to the NJOY promotional materials, a cartridge replaces about ½ pack of tobacco cigarettes. How does the quantity of TSNAs in an NJOY cartridge compare to the 63,000 ng of TSNAs in 10 Marlboro tobacco cigarettes?

4. Please list the quantities of each “additional impurity” that the FDA detected in the electronic cigarette liquid, along with the MRL for each of these substances.

5. Are these additional impurities also found in Marlboro tobacco cigarettes, and if so, in what quantities for 10 cigarettes?

I stand by my original letter to Betsy Pash and look forward to details you send back to me on the above 5 points to support the assertion that your "factsheet" is indeed factual.

If you cannot, I think it only fair that you remove this document from your website, and it might also be a good idea for the general public to be made aware of such removal through mass media outlets, so that any current smokers who were afraid to try the e-cigarette based on the information contained in your "factsheet", can make the decision on whether or not to use them based on facts and not fear/misinformation.

Again, I thank you for your time,
Sincerely,

I sent this
to:
CalcagnoR@michigan.gov
PashE@michigan.gov

cc:
tompearce@house.mi.gov
robertdean@house.mi.gov
rephildenbrand@house.mi.gov
SenMJansen@senate.michigan.gov

 

[pianoguy]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, that is VERY good!

 

[skydragon]

I for one love the fact you are shoving this in their faces.
I also love the fact that in your initial e-mail you stated:

I refuse to have my right to choose what is best for me taken away based on fear-mongering, and misinformation.

I'm sick and tired of asking and begging these self serving law makers. It's past time we told them that we refuse to play by their rules and quietly lay down and die.

 

[wardge76]

I got one response so far... A little more encouraging than the last one...

Sounds like you've been talking to the health dept. for a while. No one in here is really an expert on this. But is there something I can do for you?

Mike



Michael Zois
Director of Constituent Relations,
Senator Mark Jansen
517-373-0797
mzois@senate.michigan.gov

Here is what I wrote back to the Senator's office...

Michael,

Thanks for the email back, I greatly appreciate it. Let me also thank you for actually asking me if there was anything you could do for me - that truly means alot. I copied the State Representatives and Senator because I wanted them to know I was concerned about the accuracy of the document published on the Health Department's website, and feel that I am getting the brush off.

As I mentioned in my original letter to Betsy Pash, I believe serious assumptions and errors are published in their "factsheet", which I fear may someday be used as "evidence" to persuade lawmakers in our State to ban the availability of what I, and many others believe (based on real scientific data - and a little bit of common sense) to be safer alternatives to smoking tobacco cigarettes. I personally believe that the electronic cigarette (also known as a personal vaporizer) has saved my life, and feel that having my rights stripped away based on faulty data and public misinformation (be it intentional or accidental), equates to the State of Michigan telling me that they do not care about the well-being and happiness of their citizens, voters and taxpayers.

I have provided Ms. Pash and Ms. Calcagno information and research references that question the accuracy of their document. As a public-health organization, the information they publish influences the general public. It sickens me to think that the State would rather condemn its citizens to death from smoking-related illnesses than concede that they might have "jumped the gun" when they published the document and agree to remove it unless they can prove their assertions absolutely. I also strongly believe that the removal of the document should be sent out as a press release to all major media outlets in the state to ease the minds of any smokers who have been afraid to use the product, as well as the people around them who may be concerned about the myth of "second-hand water vapor"

The CASAA (as I mentioned in my original letter), has a wealth of research information linked from their site. I find it impossible to believe that Ms. Calcagno or Ms. Pash actually reviewed the research or contacted the CASAA, based on the short note I received back from Ms. Calcagno.

Our elected officials and lawmakers should have all the facts before making decisions that impact the lives, health and happiness of the people that elected them to office. I know of no imminent ban proposed in our State, but I want to share this information with the people that have the power to stop it from happening should it ever become an issue.

I invite you and the Senator to check out the research links I provided to the Health Department, and I encourage you to contact the CASAA for yourself.

I also hope that you will compare your findings to the State of Michigan's "factsheet" on the electronic-cigarette and see the discrepancies for yourself.

Again, I thank you for replying to me, and thank you for your time.

 

[Vocalek]

Fabulous letter!

BTW: The Michigan State Health Department will probably be scratching their heads regarding the number that needs to be plugged into the blank for question 3, because the FDA failed to specify the quantity. They can contact Siobhan.Delancey@fda.hhs.gov and ask her to supply this information. She has not responded to my requests for this information, but perhaps if a state health department representatives asks for the information, she won't be able to just ignore them.

We know from the testing performed by Dr. Murray Laugesen of Health New Zealand that the 16 mg. Ruyan cartridge contains 8 ng/g of TSNAs. My guess would be that if the FDA was able to measure the quantity at all in an NJOY cartridge, it is in this ball park.

We also know that when NJOY had their vapor tested by ANALYZE with the test report reviewed and verified by an independent expert (Ben Thomas Group) that they found 8 ng in the NJOY liquid, but only one type of TSNA made it into the vapor -- and that particular TSNA is not carcinogenic. Here are the links to these two documents.

http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf

http://www.casaa.org/files/Study_TSNAs_in_NJOY_Vapor.pdf

Let me know if you need any more information and I'll do what I can to find it for you.

 

[rothenbj]

Excellent letter and hopefully you'll get follow through.